AUR#705 June 4 Klitschko vs Tyson; Shevchenko Adds Lustre To Chelsea; Rocks Thrown At U.S. Marines; Leave We Don’t Need You Here; No To NATO In Ukraine

=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR           
                 An International Newsletter, The Latest, Up-To-Date
                     In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis and Commentary

                      Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
         Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World       

                        
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR – Number 705
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor  
WASHINGTON, D.C., SUNDAY, JUNE 4, 2006 
           –——-  INDEX OF ARTICLES  ——–
         Clicking on the title of any article takes you directly to the article.               
Return to the Index by clicking on Return to Index at the end of each article
1.                                        BE UNLIKE MIKE
                   [Wladimir Klitschko, Ukraine vs. Mike Tyson, USA]
LIFE OF REILLY:
By Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated magazine
New York, New York, Volume 104, No. 22, Pg. 84, May 29, 2006
2.   UKRAINE’S SHEVCHENKO ADDS LUSTRE TO CHELSEA SET
        It’s a long, long way from Chernobyl, and from the rural hamlet of
          Dvirkivshchyna, where Andriy’s grandfather was apparently a
                     hypnotic mover around the village dancefloor.
By Rob Hughes, The Sunday Times, London, UK, June 04, 2006

3SHEVCHENKO BOLSTERS CHELSEA WORLD DOMINATION PLOT 
    Ukraine’s Andriy Shevchenko, one of the finest post-war European strikers
By Robert Woodard, Reuters, London, Friday, Jun 2, 2006

4. UKRAINE STRIKER SHEVCHENKO SKIPS ITALY READY FOR FINALS
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, Jun 2, 2006


5.    UKRAINE PRESIDENT URGES ACTION ON SOCCER STADIUM
    FOR BID TO CO-HOST 2012 EUROPEAN SOCCER CHAMPIONSHIP 
By Yevgeny Rusakov, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

6.   POLAND & UKRAINE HAS STRONG CHANCE OF HOSTING THE
      2012 EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP, WORLD CUP SHOWING KEY
Patrick Graham, Reuters, Warsaw, Poland, Sunday, June 4, 2006

7ANTI-NATO DEMONSTRATORS BLOCK U.S. FORCES IN UKRAINE 
REUTERS, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

8NATO PROTESTERS IN UKRAINE THROW ROCKS AT MICHIGAN US
   MARINE RESERVISTS OF SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE                          

By Tom Watts, Macomb Daily Staff Writer
Mount Clemens, Michigan, Saturday, June 3, 2006

9.     UKRAINE CROWD TELLS U.S. TROOPS TO LEAVE COUNTRY
            Demonstrators seeking to undercut their president’s drive to join
        NATO target a group of Marines preparing for joint military exercises.
By David Holley, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles, California, Saturday, June 3, 2006

10.     CRIMEA DEFIES ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF US SHIP AT PORT
ITAR-TASS, Moscow, Russia, Friday, June 2, 2006

11WEAK AUTHORITY EMBOLDENS UKRAINE ANTI-NATO PROTESTS 
                   Anti-NATO forces protest joint military exercise in Ukraine
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 107
Jamestown Foundation, Wash, DC, Friday June 2, 2006

12.    UKRAINIAN FOREIGN AND DEFENSE MINISTRIES IN THEIR
         JOINT STATEMENT NAME PROTESTS IN CRIMEA AGAINST
                   CALLING IN AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIP AS

                             POLITICAL DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS

Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

13.    STAY OF UNARMED FOREIGN MILITARY CONTINGENT IN

                    UKRAINE MEETS UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION
Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006
Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

15.                      THE NOT SO GREAT NATO DEBATE
A COMMENT ON THE NATO DEBATE: By Martin Nunn
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #705, Article 15
Washington, D.C., Sunday, June 4, 2006

16.                        JOINING NATO – 20:6 TO UKRAINE
ANALYSIS: By Oleksandr Paily (in Ukrainian)
Translated by Eugene Ivantsov
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, May 29, 2006

17.   UKRAINE’S KHARKIV REGION VOTES TO GIVE RUSSIAN
                     LOCAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGE STATUS
Interfax-Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Saturday, June 3, 2006

18.                   VOLUNTARY SPIRITUAL SERVITUDE
              Reasons why Russianization is still going on in Ukraine
By Marta Onufriv, Journalist, Toronto (in Ukrainian)
Translated by Natalia Butenko
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, May 25, 2006

19.      THE RISE OF INTEGRAL ANTIAMERICANISM IN RUSSIA
                       MASS MEDIA AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE
By Dr. Andreas Umland, UNIAN News Agency

Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, May 29, 2006

20.               “LET POLICY REFLECT THE POPULAR VOTE”
LETTER-TO-THE- EDITOR: By Mikhail A. Molchanov, Ph.D.
Professor, St. Thomas University, Canada
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #705, Article 20
Washington, D.C., Sunday, June 4, 2006

 
21.OMELJAN PRITSAK, NOTED SCHOLAR OF UKRAINE DEAD AT 87
               Born April 7, 1919 in Luka, Ukraine, learned 12 languages
Associated Press (AP), Boston, Massachusetts, Sat, June 3, 2006
 
22.     UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT REMEMBERS BYKIVNYA VICTIMS
          They must have refused to betray their motherland, language, church
                 We must stop being afraid of our history Yushchenko says.
Office of the President of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, May 21, 2006
========================================================
1
                          BE UNLIKE MIKE
                    [Wladimir Klitschko, Ukraine vs. Mike Tyson, USA]

LIFE OF REILLY: By Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated magazine
New York, New York, Volume 104, No. 22, Pg. 84, May 29, 2006

There are two ways to be heavyweight champion of the world.

You can do it the Mike Tyson way: Surround yourself with mooks
and thugs, guys who would rather dance ‘Swan Lake’ than say “no”
to you about anything.

Blow millions filling seven-car garages, sleeping under sable
bedspreads and feeding your pet white tigers.  Harass and molest
your groupies.

Or you can do it the Wladimir Klitschko way.  The current IBF
champion, Klitschko is so lame he doesn’t have a posse.  He has a
Ph.D., a jones for chess and there are stuffed Easter Bunnies on the
lawn of the place where he stays in L.A.

He doesn’t even munch ears.  Single, he doesn’t sleep with his
groupies, most because he doesn’t have any.

An actual conversation Klitschko had at a bar one night in L.A.:

Woman: What do you do?
Wlad: I travel very much.
Woman: But what do you do?
Wlad: I am a pugilist.
Woman: What’s that?
Wlad: I do pugilistic.
Woman: Ohhh. That sound very smart.

Finding people who don’t know him is easy.  Throw a bucket of birdseed
in any bar and you’ll hit 50 of them.  So far, on this May Wednesday in
L.A., we’ve been to Gold’s Gym in Venice, a cafe in Pacific Palisades
and stopped for a few hundred red lights, and not one person has asked
for his autograph or so much as honked a horn at him.

Tyson, meanwhile, hasn’t beaten a decent opponent in 10 years, yet was
in London the other day and had to run for his life from people who
wanted to touch him.  Of course, people wanted to touch Al Capone, too.

Klitschko, 30, wants your attention only long enough to practice his magic
tricks.  And even if he picks a card that isn’t yours, you say it is.  Have
you ever seen this beast?  He’s 6′ 6″, with hands the size of toaster oven,
shoulders that scrape both sides of doorways and a scowl in the ring that
would make a Soprano hand over his wallet.

Not that Tyson can’t do magic.  He made $400 million disappear pretty
quickly.  Like Klitschko he kicks around Los Angeles, too, only a lot less
joyfully.  Saw him at Mr Chow’s the other night, head down in his noodles,
never looking up, talking to nobody at his table.

He is a hollow figure these days, trying to scare up appearance money,
reality-show offers, or ads and mostly failing.

He still has the Tyson way, though, offering to eat other fighters’
children and such.  Not that long ago he insisted that he didn’t rape a
teenage Desiree Washington in 1991 – although he did three years of
striped sunshine for it — but he said the whole episode made him so mad
“I wish I did.” Classy.

Klitschko, meanwhile, doesn’t want to eat people’s kids. He want to teach
them.  He is a tireless spokesman for UNESCO – United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – and its work in
developing countries, and he’s going to Africa later this year to help
again.

That’s the rip in Klitschko.  He needs more Tyson, more savagery.
“They say of me, ‘No heart, no chin, no balls,'” Klitschko says.  “I
want to give an answer with my performance, not with the words.
Words do not mean anything.”

He convinced some people with his outpatient surgery on Chris Boyd
last month to win the title.  Now he wants to fight this fall at Madison
Square Garden.  “I work on lining up an opponent every day now.”

Yeah, that’s right – Klitschko even acts as his own promoter and
manager.  Do you realize how much money Tyson would have today
if he’d have been his own manager and promoter?

He wouldn’t have had to sell his houses in Las Vegas, Ohio and
Connecticut.  His lawyers wouldn’t be negotiating with the IRS to
whittle down the millions he owes.  Not that Tyson can pay the reduced
figure, either.

Poor Klitschko.  He’s completely clueless how to be a champ.  He has
this crazy notion about saving his money instead of giving it up to Don
King.

Growing up in Ukraine, he dreamed of American riches for too long to
blow it now.  One time, a family member brought back a bottle of Coke
from America.  Klitschko’s eyes went as wide as Frisbees. “There’s U.S.
air in that.!” he yelled.  He put his face over the top, flipped the cap and
sucked in , smiling hugely.  Wlad the Inhaler.


Of 100 people, 99 will know Tyson and one will know Klitschko.
Personally, I am more grateful to know Klitschko, a good man whose
right hand is huge and whose heart is even bigger.

And I think: Not ‘more’ Tyson, less.                   -30-
——————————————————————————————
NOTE:  If you have a comment for Rick Reilly, send it to
Reilly@siletters.com; LINK: http://www.SI.com 
——————————————————————————————-
NOTE: Our thanks to Robert McConnell for alerting us to the SI article.
————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. UKRAINE’S SHEVCHENKO ADDS LUSTRE TO CHELSEA SET
       It’s a long, long way from Chernobyl, and from the rural hamlet of
          Dvirkivshchyna, where Andriy’s grandfather was apparently a
                     hypnotic mover around the village dancefloor.

By Rob Hughes, The Sunday Times
London, United Kingdom, June 04, 2006

Signing the Ukraine striker shows nobody is beyond the reach of Roman
Abramovich – and it didn’t hurt that the pair shared a common tongue

PETER KENYON is well on the way to proving his point, that Chelsea intend to
buy their way into becoming a league of one. No other club has a paymaster
who would pursue, and get, Andriy Shevchenko, a soon-to-be-30-year-old, at
£30m, on a salary of £6m a year.

Nobody other than Roman Abramovich has the purse, the persuasion – or the
wife. It was her two-year friendship with Shevchenko’s lady that, as much as
anything else, is the reason why one of the most proven goalscorers of
modern times is heading for Stamford Bridge.

And nothing illustrates more the Chelski mission to bring home the Champions
League trophy than this summer’s recruitments of Shevchenko, Michael
Ballack, John Obi Mikel, Salomon Kalou – and no doubt before the World Cup
is done, also the Brazil left-back Roberto Carlos.

As coach, Jose Mourinho has two tasks exceeding the English title. He is
expected now to mould his squad’s talents and conquer Europe, then, as chief
executive Kenyon suggested when he secured Mourinho, bring on the World Club
Championship.

With older players such as Shevchenko and Ballack aboard, time is of the
essence for Abramovich. And so it is for his new recruit. Shevchenko has one
month to fulfil his dream of getting his homeland, Ukraine, as far as
possible in the one and only World Cup he is likely to play. His goals, and
his national team’s mean defence, have got them this far.

Raised in the shadow of Chernobyl, and evacuated when he was 10 to the Black
Sea away from the deadly fallout of that nuclear disaster, Shevchenko has
now escaped in the nick of time from the stench surrounding the Italian
leagues this summer. The extent of corruption makes this the perfect time to
depart a club for whom he was content to sign a contract to 2009.

Shevchenko is, or has been, worth all the fuss. He speaks of admiring
Mourinho’s team ethic, and of the team being more important than individual
expression. But Shevchenko speaks as the player whose 173 goals for Milan
made him the consort of two of the world’s most famous yacht owners –

former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and Abramovich.

The son of a former Red Army tank commander, the perfected product of the
late, renowned Ukrainian coach Valeri Lobanovski, and these days a friend
and business partner of Giorgio Armani, Shevchenko has learned well the
values of aim, fire, and dress it all in style.

His wife, the American model Kristen Pazik, now has what she wants, an
English-speaking home and schooling for their two-year-old son Jordan,

named out of respect for basketball legend Michael Jordan.

There is nothing wrong in a mother’s instinct to get the best for her
children. Nothing amiss either in Irina Abramovich and Kristen enjoying
their shopping in London while the men talk football. And nothing surprising
in Roman Abramovich getting his man.

This is the way that football at the top has evolved. Time was when
Berlusconi’s largess was seen by rivals, such as the then Juventus
benefactor Gianni Agnelli, as “obscene spending, spoiling the market for the
rest of us”.

Now, Berlusconi has lost his prized asset, just as his son Piersilvio became
the ex of Pazik when Shevchenko became the new man.

Shevchenko’s summer has never been more bountiful. He has the World Cup he
craved, his family have the move they, and Abramovich, desired. It’s a long,
long way from Chernobyl, and from the rural hamlet of Dvirkivshchyna, where
Andriy’s grandfather was apparently a hypnotic mover around the village
dancefloor.

That fancy footwork, handed down to a new generation, has transformed the
life of a player who at 14 not only idolised Ian Rush but was given a pair
of the Liverpool player’s boots.

The immediate question now is how much is left in Shevchenko? His last
season has been comparatively unproductive. He played just 28 league games,
and scored 19 goals, for Milan, and he is nursing a knee injury going into
the World Cup.

Maybe, like a lot of star players – Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane for instance –
we can suspect that he has been saving something of himself, with the World
Cup around the corner. Maybe Shevchenko will keep his focus as Zidane has
done so enduringly.

Perhaps Jordan, the son now to be schooled in Surrey, will be able to
appreciate where the wealth comes from, and see his dad lauded at Stamford
Bridge. Perhaps it is wrong to harbour doubts about harmony within a team –
indeed, a growing squad of superstars – now that their dressing room is
shared by one player whose links to the owner are more direct than even
Mourinho or Kenyon can enjoy.

The courtship of the Shevchenkos has taken place aboard the Abramovich
yachts in Russian, a language few around football’s top echelons understand.
Or maybe the lingua franca is simply money.                  -30-
————————————————————————————————
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2093-2209796,00.html

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
=========================================================
3. SHEVCHENKO BOLSTERS CHELSEA WORLD DOMINATION PLOT 
    Ukraine’s Andriy Shevchenko, one of the finest post-war European strikers

By Robert Woodard, Reuters, London, Friday, Jun 2, 2006

LONDON – With the purchase of Michael Ballack and Andriy Shevchenko,
Chelsea have taken the gloves off and laid bare their plan for world
domination.

The London club have won the English title for the last two seasons after an
unprecedented spending spree by owner Roman Abramovich encompassing
more than 20 players.

These men, almost all of them international players, have helped Jose
Mourinho build a formidable team but none of the recruits, except perhaps
Argentina’s Hernan Crespo, was a truly world-famous name.

The arrivals of Ballack, Germany’s captain, and Shevchenko, one of the
finest post-war European strikers, changes all that.

Chelsea have catapulted themselves into an elite occupied by Real Madrid,
Barcelona and Manchester United who reap the commercial benefits of their
club’s cachet, almost regardless of how their team perform on the field.

“This demonstrates Chelsea are operating at the top level because he
(Shevchenko) is recognised as probably the best striker in Europe, and he
comes from a massive club in Milan,” said chief executive Peter Kenyon.

England is now too small for Abramovich and his ambitions, and sealing a
third Premier League title appears a foregone conclusion for those running
Stamford Bridge.

Only winning Europe’s biggest prize, the Champions League, for the first
time will suffice next season.

It (the Champions League) is the holy grail for everybody, certainly all the
top clubs. To get one in our boardroom would be nice,” said Kenyon.
                                      BOND ELEMENTS
Chelsea’s plan to annex all that glitters in European soccer has many
elements of a 1960s James Bond movie. The Russian billionaire pulling all
the strings who smiles but never speaks in public and his right-hand man
with piercing eyes who demands total loyalty from his troops.

Now they are supported by a German built like a small tank and a deadly
assassin brought up behind the Iron Curtain.

Even the Americans at Manchester United, the Glazer family, do not have the
financial muscle to overpower Abramovich. Indeed, it is very hard to see
United, Liverpool or Arsenal stopping Chelsea for the foreseeable future.

Chelsea’s midfield of powerful Ghanaian Michael Essien, England stalwart
Frank Lampard, Ballack and France’s Claude Makelele, with winger Joe Cole
buzzing around the edges, ranks among the most formidable in the history of
the English game.

The defence could still be bolstered by Real Madrid’s Brazilian Roberto
Carlos while the attack, with or without Crespo, has multiple possibilities
centred on Shevchenko.

However, Robert Carlos’s present employers, Real Madrid, have proved over
the last three seasons that bringing together some of the world’s greatest
players does not necessarily result in a winning team.

At Chelsea, problems could arise from Mourinho’s “special” way of doing
things and his insistence on team rather than individual merit.

The Portuguese, a Champions League winner with Porto, said last season he
had thought of leaving Chelsea because of the opprobrium piled on him and
his club despite, or because of, their achievements.

Mourinho and his players have had a number of run-ins with soccer
authorities and became increasingly annoyed last season with criticism of
their style of play and the media’s obsession with Abramovich’s millions.

Mourinho’s policy of ensuring he has the choice of two top quality players
for each position and rotating at will can also rub some players up the
wrong way.

It will be particularly interesting to see how Ballack, master of all he
surveyed with Bayern Munich and Bayer Leverkusen for many years, will take
to his new boss.                               -30-

————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
4. UKRAINE STRIKER SHEVCHENKO SKIPS ITALY READY FOR FINALS

Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, Jun 2, 2006

KIEV – Ukraine striker Andriy Shevchenko, recovering from a knee injury,
says he is confident he will be fit to lead the national side in their first
World Cup campaign, but ruled himself out for Friday’s friendly against
Italy.

“I am not ready to play (Friday),” Shevchenko told Ukrainian journalists in
the Swiss city of Lausanne after an initial training session at their Swiss
training camp. He was named on the bench for the match.

“I have been in contact with (coach) Oleg Blokhin. He has a pretty good idea
of the state of things. This is my first workout with the team since the
injury.

“I’ve done some exercises, so I’m optimistic. Two weeks are left and I’m
going to get ready,” Shevchenko was quoted as saying by various Ukrainian
sports websites.

Shevchenko told reporters he was happy the transfer deal with Chelsea was
completed before the start of the World Cup “so that I can now concentrate
on the tournament in Germany”.

Ukraine are making their first appearance in the World Cup, with Spain
favoured in their group, which also includes Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Coach
Blokhin has set his team’s minimum goal as reaching the tournament’s second
round.

Ukraine faces two more friendly matches before their tournament opener
against Spain on June 14 — against Libya on June 5 and Luxembourg on

June 8.                                                -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
5. UKRAINE PRESIDENT URGES ACTION ON SOCCER STADIUM
 FOR BID TO CO-HOST 2012 EUROPEAN SOCCER CHAMPIONSHIP 

By Yevgeny Rusakov, Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

KIEV – President Viktor Yushchenko on Friday urged Kiev authorities to

take steps to end a row over a construction site by the city’s main stadium
which could hurt a bid to co-host the 2012 Europeansoccer championship.

Ukrainian sports officials this week expressed optimism over their bid with
Poland, suggesting a match-fixing scandal had compromised the chances of
early favourite Italy.

But construction of a shopping and entertainment complex next to the
84,000-seat Olympic stadium has prompted warnings from FIFA that it could
withdraw permission to hold major matches there because of violation of
safety norms.

Yushchenko, along with city and sports officials, appeared to have found a
compromise in March by persuading developers to alter construction plans to
meet FIFA concerns. Construction has, however, proceeded without any

visible changes.

Yushchenko called on new Kiev Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky to “take additional
measures to solve issues linked to preparing the Olympic complex for the
2012 European soccer championship.

“At issue here is implementation of national and international demands to
ensure safety for participants, visitors and workers …,” Yushchenko said
in a comment posted on the presidential Web site www.president.gov.ua.

                                 SURPRISE INCLUSION
Yushchenko has repeatedly backed the Polish-Ukrainian bid since it was a
surprise inclusion last year on the shortlist of candidates to hold the 2012
tournament, along with Italy and a joint entry by Hungary and Croatia.

The March agreement included a commitment to modernise the stadium, built in
1923 and renovated several times. Used for the soccer tournament at the 1980
Moscow Olympics, it remains the focus of soccer in Ukraine and draws huge
crowds at big matches.

The Russian newspaper Sport Express this week quoted Ukrainian Olympic

chief Sergei Bubka as saying that the joint bid — presented in greater detail to
UEFA officials in Switzerland — had gained ground.

“It has all gone very well, especially as one competitor, Italy, is
practically out of the running. Their presentation, frankly, was no good at
all,” Bubka was quoted as saying.

“Now, we have to work carefully over the next six months towards our final
presentation, where every word, every argument weighs on the vote.”

Ukrainian soccer federation chief Hryhory Surkis said Yushchenko’s support
for the project was critical.

“Our chances are probably higher now,” Sport Express quoted him as saying.
“That means we will have to work, work, work over the next six months and
make more demands on those critical to the bid — from the government to
soccer federation officials.”                      -30-

————————————————————————————————
http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-5861795,00.html
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================      
6. POLAND & UKRAINE HAS STRONG CHANCE OF HOSTING THE
    2012 EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP, WORLD CUP SHOWING KEY

Patrick Graham, Reuters, Warsaw, Poland, Sunday, June 4, 2006

WARSAW – Poland and Ukraine have a strong chance of hosting the 2012

European Championship and hope a good showing at the World Cup will
boost their hopes further, Poland’s deputy sports minister says.

Piotr Gawron, appointed late last year to run Warsaw’s side of the joint
bid, said the pair now lead the running, helped by a combined population of
80 million and the offer of the first Eastern European finals since the fall
of the Iron Curtain.

All three remaining bidders — the others are Italy and a joint entry by
Croatia and Hungary — submitted their offers to Europe’s governing body
UEFA on Wednesday. A 12-man commission will make a final decision on the
winner on December 8.

“I’m convinced we have a better than even chance, maybe even more than 80
percent,” Gawron, 40, told Reuters late on Friday in his office outside
Legia Warsaw’s ground.

“The Croatians and Hungarians are probably our biggest competition. I love
football but this is about something more (for east European countries). It
would give a huge boost to jobs and growth.”

Poland and Ukraine’s combined 80 million population dwarfs 15 million in
Hungary and Croatia. Against the Italians, their major weakness is
infrastructure, with shortfalls in hotels and transport links and stadiums
that do not meet UEFA requirements.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko on Friday urged Kiev authorities to
take steps to end a row over a construction site next to the city’s Olympic
stadium, which has prompted warnings from FIFA that it could ban games
there on safety grounds.

Like his Ukrainian counterparts, Gawron plays down such concerns.

“We have found a variety of solutions to these problems,” he said. “Of
course, billions will have to be invested, but at the end of the day that’s
the point. If a small country like Portugal can do it, then there is no
question that we can too.”
                                        RISING CHANCES
Gawron said good publicity from Poland and Ukraine’s World Cup campaigns

may improve the pair’s chances and said concerns among German police that
Polish fans would be a key source of trouble at this month’s finals may be
overplayed.

Media have played up the threat of an east against west clash among
hooligans with images of street battles in Polish cities and promises from
gangs that they will cross the border armed with knives and axes to attack
English and German fans.

“As to the hooligan problem, almost every country in Europe has it to a
greater or lesser extent,” Gawron said. “It’s always easy to say a problem

exists. The hard thing is to show you can fix it.

“I’m convinced that within a few years we will have won the battle with
hooliganism in Poland. We have no choice. We must do so or the game as a
spectator sport will die. People are already afraid of attending games and
this cannot continue.”

Gawron was appointed for his background in commercial public relations and
he has employed several of the consultants behind Germany’s World Cup bid
and London’s for the 2012 Olympics along with a young, energetic team in
Warsaw.

His boisterous staff are in stark contrast to the communist-era atmosphere
often visible in Polish sporting organisations.

“This team is desperate to win,” he said. “We spent two weeks working on the
documentation in Kiev last month and nobody slept. They will give their all
to get this done.

“UEFA has a choice. One allows them to live quietly but is boring and
conservative. The other is to do something which may lay the foundations

for football in eastern Europe to become finally comparable to that in the
west.”                                                   -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
=========================================================
7. ANTI-NATO DEMONSTRATORS BLOCK U.S. FORCES IN UKRAINE 

REUTERS, Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

Activists from Ukraine’s pro-Russian opposition June 2 prevented around 100
U.S. troops from reaching a Ukrainian army base in Crimea, southern Ukraine,
the Interfax news agency reported.

The Americans were to be housed in a Ukrainian defense ministry sanatorium
in the southern Crimean village of Partenit while they prepared for military
exercises designed to develop military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO.

But an anti-NATO demonstration blocked the road to the village, and the U.S.
troops had to be housed in a different sanatorium some distance away in
Alushta.

The preparations for the Sea Breeze 2006 military maneuvers involving NATO
members and their former Cold War Warsaw Pact enemies, now participants in
NATO’s Partnership for Peace, have met with a great deal of opposition in
Ukraine.

The country’s pro-Western President, Viktor Yushchenko, wants Ukraine to
join NATO eventually, but a large section of the population is opposed.

The former Soviet country is split between those who favor maintaining a
special relationship with Russia and those who want to forge closer ties
with Western powers.

The pro-Russian Regions party finished first in parliamentary elections held
on March 26, but has not been able to form a government. The Communist
party, well represented at the Crimea demonstrations, is also staunchly
pro-Russian.

Hostility to the North Atlantic alliance is particularly strong in Crimea,
where the Russian Black Sea fleet is based.

Also spurred on by Ukraine’s pro-Russian parties, several dozen people have
been blocking the port of Feodosia in eastern Crimea since Monday in protest
at the arrival of a U.S. ship carrying materials for the planned exercises.

And there have been demonstrations at the nearby Starokrymsky training
facility, where the Sea Breeze exercises are due to take place, Interfax
reported.

The Ukrainian security council has said it believes foreigners, particularly
Russians, are participating in the demonstrations, which have been making
headline news on Russian television for several days.

The council’s secretary, Volodymyr Gorbulin, said that if these accusations
were confirmed, the foreign demonstrators would be deported and “designated
as unwelcome” in Ukraine.

The U.S. embassy in Kiev by saying it was “continuing to work with the
Ukrainian government to clear the construction equipment from the port and
to defuse tension caused by the protest in Crimea.”           -30-
————————————————————————————————

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     NOTE: Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
8. NATO PROTESTERS IN UKRAINE THROW ROCKS AT MICHIGAN US
    MARINE RESERVISTS OF SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE
                              Marines in Ukraine to help with projects.

By Tom Watts, Macomb Daily Staff Writer
Mount Clemens, Michigan, Saturday, June 3, 2006

Many of the Michigan reservists targeted Thursday by protesters in the
Ukraine were from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, but there were no
injuries and the American support group was later taken to a secure
location.

The reservists from Marine Wing Support Group 47 are in Ukraine preparing
for Exercise Sea Breeze, said Lt. Corey Barker of Navy Public Affairs for
U.S. and European Command in Germany.

“The Marines arrived and were met by protesters who surrounded the bus,
shouted anti-U.S. and anti-NATO slogans,” Barker said. “One protester threw
a rock and broke a window. The Ukraine Naval Security Forces came in. They
(Marine reservists) were taken 180 kilometers to another location.”

Maj. Leonard Dorrian of Marine Wing Support Group 47 located at Selfridge
ANGB said about 227 Reserve Marine men and women from metropolitan

Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Perrysburg, Ohio, are
preparing for Exercise Sea Breeze in the Ukraine.

“They will construct dining tents, latrines and birthing tents so
multinational forces can use them this summer for their exercise,” Dorrian
said.

Brent Byers, public information officer for the U.S. Embassy in Kiev,
Ukraine, said the Marine Wing Support Group 47 arrived at Simferopol Airport
in the Ukraine on Thursday as part of a construction and engineering unit
invited by the Ukrainian government to assist with upgrading facilities.

“They are anxious to begin the assistance work they were invited here to
do,” Byers said in a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. “The
U.S. Embassy is continuing to work with the Ukrainian government to clear
the construction equipment from the port and to defuse tension caused by
protests in Crimea.

“Peaceful demonstration and assembly are important elements of any
democracy, but should not be allowed to escalate to the point where people
are hurt or property is damaged.”

Byers said Marine Wing Support Group 47 entered the Crimean port of
Feodosiya in Crimea on Thursday and unloaded materials and equipment for
the construction project. He said the more than 200 Marines reservists
serving in Crimea all have civilian jobs in the United States.

“To maintain their proficiency they leave these jobs for three weeks each
year to work on projects such as the quality of life enhancements that they
were asked to construct in Crimea,” Byers said. “Once this annual obligation
is met they return to their jobs in the U.S.”

There will be no American military or NATO presence in Crimea once the
construction unit departs in three weeks, Byers said, noting Ukrainian and
U.S. Naval Forces are scheduled to co-host Sea Breeze this summer, an
invitational joint maritime training exercise in the Black Sea.

The U.S. views the Sea Breeze exercise as a good opportunity for many
nations to come together to build stronger partnerships.

“Ukraine has been a regular and active participant in Partnership for Peace
training exercises since 1994,” Byers said. “There is currently a great deal
of misunderstanding about the role of NATO left over from the Soviet period.

“We hope Ukrainians will take the time to learn more about NATO’s role in
the world today. We believe the democratic, economic and military reforms
necessary for Ukraine to join NATO would be in Ukraine’s interest, whether
it ultimately decides to join or not, but again this is a choice for
Ukrainians.”                                         -30-
——————————————————————————————————–
http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/060306/loc_selfridge%20protestors001.shtml
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]

========================================================
9. UKRAINE CROWD TELLS U.S. TROOPS TO LEAVE COUNTRY
         Demonstrators seeking to undercut their president’s drive to join
      NATO target a group of Marines preparing for joint military exercises.

By David Holley, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles, California, Saturday, June 3, 2006

MOSCOW – A group of Marine reservists were the target of anti-NATO
protests Friday in Ukraine’s predominantly Russian-speaking Crimean region,
with the demonstrators seeking to undercut a drive by President Viktor
Yushchenko to lead his nation toward membership in the Western alliance.

More than 100 Marines are preparing for a joint U.S.-Ukrainian military
exercise scheduled for July. They were being transported by bus to join
other American military personnel at a Ukrainian Defense Ministry sanitarium
in the Black Sea town of Feodosiya when protesters blocked their route about
4 a.m. Friday, Rossiya television reported.

The state-run Russian channel showed footage of a crowd surrounding the bus
in darkness, rocking it back and forth, and shouting in English, “Yankee, go
home!” The convoy turned around and took the Marines to a facility in
Alushta, another Black Sea coastal town.

Rossiya television showed demonstrators gathering there as well, shouting
anti-American slogans and displaying a long red banner reading, “The people
of Alushta demand it: No to NATO in Ukraine!”

“Leave this place. We don’t need you here,” a middle-aged woman shouted
through a loudspeaker. “Go back to your mothers.”

The protests began Sunday when a U.S. ship arrived in Feodosiya carrying
personnel and equipment to be used in preparing a Ukrainian military
facility to hold the exercises, dubbed “Sea Breeze 2006.”

The ship has also been blockaded by protesters.

Under Ukrainian law, parliament must give annual approval for foreign troops
to enter the country for training exercises. Usually that is a formality.
But in February, just before March parliamentary elections, lawmakers voted
down a bill that would have granted such permission.

The new parliament, which has not yet reached agreement on forming the next
government, has met only briefly since the elections, and its next session
is set for Wednesday. The outgoing Cabinet hopes to win approval for the
military exercises at that session.

At a protest in Feodosiya on Thursday, Leonid Grach, a Communist Party
leader, charged that Yushchenko had “betrayed the interests of Ukraine.”

“Crimean residents should demonstrate that they can defend themselves
against the outright traitors in Kiev, who will try to railroad through
parliament on June 7 the law on the deployment of American invaders in the
Crimea,” Grach told the protesters, according to the Russian news agency
Itar-Tass. “The people should defend our Slavonic unity.. We shall not give
so much as an inch of our land to be trampled by the boots of U.S.
soldiers.”

The protesters in the Crimean region and other critics of Yushchenko argue
that because parliament has not yet authorized the presence of foreign
troops for the exercises, the presence of U.S. military personnel in the
country is illegal.

The Ukrainian Defense and Foreign ministries issued a joint statement Friday
blasting the protests as “destructive moves under pseudo-patriotic mottos”
aimed at achieving partisan political aims. The protests have been backed by
several opposition political parties critical of Yushchenko.

The statement said that more than a dozen other countries were expected to
participate in Sea Breeze 2006, but it was formally considered to be a
Ukrainian-American event rather than a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
activity. The other participants include Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Georgia
and Spain.

The exercises will not be held without parliamentary approval, the statement
declared.

Yushchenko has made winning eventual NATO membership for Ukraine one
of his key goals, but surveys show a majority of citizens oppose it. A poll
conducted in January by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, a Ukrainian
nongovernmental organization that specializes in surveys, showed that 19% of
respondents favored entering the alliance and 55% opposed such a move, with
the rest expressing no opinion.

Many critics of NATO membership argue that it would worsen Ukraine’s
traditionally close relationship with Russia while providing few security
benefits.

“On April 10 my child went off to the army. I sent him off because our
country had been peaceful,” Svetlana Shevchenko, one of the protesters
outside the sanitarium housing the Marines, told Rossiya television.

“Now that NATO forces have entered, I don’t want my child fighting. That’s
not what I brought him up for – to be killed for the sake of Lord-knows-what
values.”                                       -30-
————————————————————————————————-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ukraine3jun03,1,344113.story?coll=la-headlines-world
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. CRIMEA DEFIES ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF US SHIP AT PORT

ITAR-TASS, Moscow, Russia, Friday, June 2, 2006

FEODOSIA – The population of the Crimea continues protests and pickets
against the arrival of the U.S. military transport ship – the Advantage,
that brought cargoes and some weapons to Feodosia sea port intended for
Ukraine’s military test sites.

Vasily Kisilyov, leader of the Crimean branch of the Party of Regions,
declared on Friday that “the population of the Crimea would appeal to the UN
Security Council and Russia, asking to defend Ukraine from NATO intervention
if the pro-Western forces in the Ukrainian Rada pass a law on the presence
of foreign troops on the territory of Ukraine,”

“The US ship, that was absolutely illegally unloaded at the Ukrainian sea
port, rallied the entire population and all political organizations, with
pro-orange forces standing shoulder-to shoulder to us. A threat of Ukraine’s
disintegration has united all of us,” Kisilyov told Tass on Friday.

“Yushchenko has trespassed the law, violated the Constitution, allowing the
US marines, who brought cargoes and weapons, to land on the territory of
Ukraine,” Kisilyov said. On Friday, the Presidium of the Crimean Supreme
Council will address President Yushchenko, demanding explanations about the
situation in Feodosia. If he fails to settle the problem, the question of
Yushchenko’s impeachment will be raised, Kisilyov said.

Meanwhile, protest acts and pickets are containing at the Ukrainian merchant
sea port protesting against the equipment and weapons brought by the U.S.,
military transport ship from being sent elsewhere. Around 50 Cossacks
guarded the gates to the seaport terminal throughout last night.

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council will discuss the
situation in the Crimea that obviously went out of the central authorities’
control. A conference held by President Yushchenko with representatives

of the Ukrainian security structures ruled to call a meeting of the Ukrainian
Security Council, said press secretary of the Ukrainian president Irina
Gerashchenko on Friday.
————————————————————————————————
http://www.tass.ru/eng/level2.html?NewsID=9301744&PageNum=0
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
==========================================================
11. WEAK AUTHORITY EMBOLDENS UKRAINE ANTI-NATO PROTESTS 
                   Anti-NATO forces protest joint military exercise in Ukraine

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 107
Jamestown Foundation, Wash, DC, Friday June 2, 2006

The post-election crisis of Ukrainian state institutions may undermine
President Viktor Yushchenko’s and the Orange forces’ goal to bring Ukraine
into NATO during their term of office. Amid a growing deficit of effective
governance, pro-Russia groups find unprecedented leeway to frustrate Kyiv’s
policies on this and other issues affecting Ukraine’s overall orientation.

The Verkhovna Rada has not yet managed to vote the legally required approval
of the entry of troops — in this case, from the United States and other
NATO countries — for the planned joint exercises in Ukraine. Exercise
preparations were planned in advance and were due to have started in the
Crimea by late May.

However, with Yushchenko seemingly content to delay the parliament’s opening
long after the March elections, and a twice-released caretaker government
lacking authority, anti-NATO political forces feel tempted to try
interfering with the holding of exercises.

Anti-NATO protests have been underway in the Crimean port of Feodosiya since
May 27 and turned into a round-the-clock, open-ended rally in the port on
June 1. Protesters aim to disrupt preparations for Sea Breeze-2006, a major
naval and ground-force exercise.

On May 27 the U.S. transport ship, Advantage, brought military equipment and
personnel to Feodosiya to prepare that exercise. The ship was unable to
unload the equipment or land the technical personnel during three days amid
local protests.

Led by the Party of Regions and leftist pro-Russia groups, protesters
claimed that the preparations were unlawful in the absence of parliamentary
approval for the exercise. On May 30, the equipment — including arms and
ammunition, Humvees and other military vehicles, container-type structures,
and construction materials — was finally ashore, but the accompanying
technical personnel had to turn back with the ship. Pickets blocked all
exits from the port to prevent the equipment from being moved to its
destination at the Staryy Krym training range.

By June 1 the rally had swelled with delegations from eastern and southern
cities of Ukraine and Communist veterans joining the local Russian
nationalist youth organization Proryv. At least two Russian Duma deputies
arrived that day and made inflammatory remarks, instantly broadcast by
Russia’s state television to drum up support for the action (Russian TV
Channel One, June 1).

While Ukrainian marines are securing the equipment in the port against
misappropriation, the presidential plenipotentiary representative in the
Crimea, Henadiy Moskal, failed to persuade the protesters to lift the
blockade. As seen in televised footage, Moskal had to promise that the
equipment would be turned over to the Ukrainian state and the Feodosiya
municipality, if the parliament in Kyiv does not authorize the holding of
this year’s Sea Breeze exercise (Inter TV [Kyiv], Center TV [Moscow], May
30).

An emboldened Feodosiya municipal council — dominated by the Party of
Regions — has adopted a decision that declares the city a “NATO-free zone,”
banning access by ships and personnel from NATO countries. Although the
council has no jurisdiction on such issues, its decision perturbs the
atmosphere around the planned exercises and creates political complications
in Kyiv.

The Feodosiya decision follows a pattern that has emerged in recent weeks in
eastern and southern Ukraine on language issues, whereby oblast and city
councils grant official status to the Russian language, although they have
no jurisdiction on this matter. Such extralegal decisions indicate that
those local councils sense weakness in the central authorities.

Ukraine’s Defense and Foreign Affairs ministries have responded belatedly
with statements that the Advantage is a commercial vessel, not a naval one,
therefore not requiring legislative consent to enter Ukraine (if so, that
distinction does not address the military equipment and personnel aboard the
U.S. vessel).

The ministries’ statements point out that joint exercises with NATO
countries enhance the Ukrainian forces’ readiness, interoperability with
NATO allies, and opportunities to participate in international operations;
and that some of the equipment shipped in and infrastructure created for the
exercises is handed over to Ukrainian forces afterward.

Thus, according to these ministries, anti-NATO protesters are “politicking”
against Ukrainian interests while ignoring the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s
unlawful use of many land tracts and facilities in the Crimea
(Interfax-Ukraine, May 29-31).

The U.S.-led Sea Breeze-2006, involving personnel from 17 NATO member and
partner countries, is the largest of several annual exercises scheduled to
be held, mostly in the Crimea, between June and September of this year. The
other annual exercises include Cossack Steppe (Ukrainian-Polish-British),
Tight Knot (Ukrainian-British), and Combined Effort (Ukrainian-U.S.).

Responding to the Feodosiya situation, a May 31 statement by NATO
Headquarters in Brussels points out that Sea Breeze is not a NATO exercise,
but rather a Ukrainian-U.S. exercise in which NATO countries participate;
and that delivery of equipment is a bilateral U.S.-Ukrainian matter, in
which NATO as such is not involved.

While impeccably accurate for a Western audience, those distinctions will
only sound like defensive casuistry to anti-NATO groups in Ukraine, where
propaganda from Moscow and local misconception traditionally paints any
Western forces with the broad black brush as “Natovtsy.” For its part,
official Kyiv correctly links the exercises with NATO and the goal to
strengthen Ukraine’s relations with the alliance. Meanwhile, the public
approval rating of NATO in Ukraine is said to be steadily declining (Kyiv
Post, May 18).

This situation underscores the urgent need for an information campaign about
NATO for the Ukrainian public. However, driven by short-term electoral
calculations, Orange leaders (with the notable exception of Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Rukh party leader Borys Tarasyuk) have avoided
addressing the public forthrightly on this unpopular issue.

Without an early start to a public information campaign, the Orange
leadership’s goal for Ukraine to be invited into NATO by 2010 cannot be
successful — and might even become moot if Yushchenko is swayed into opting
for a coalition government with the Party of Regions. (Interfax-Ukraine,
UNIAN, Channel Five TV [Kyiv], May 27-June 1)        -30-

—————————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.jamestown.org
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
    If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12.  UKRAINIAN FOREIGN AND DEFENSE MINISTRIES IN THEIR
      JOINT STATEMENT NAME PROTESTS IN CRIMEA AGAINST
               CALLING IN AMERICAN COMMERCIAL SHIP AS
                        POLITICAL DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS

Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

KYIV – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defense Ministry of Ukraine

assess blockade of the American commercial cargo ship Advantage in the
port of Feodosiya as a political action and as “destructive moves under
pseudo-patriotic mottoes”.

As they reminded in their joint press release, the Sea Breeze military
exercises are regularly held in Ukraine since 1997. The Ukrainian – American
exercises are held with participation of Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Georgia,
Spain and other nations and have nothing to do with NATO.

The exercises will be held in 2006, as well as in the previous years, only
if the presidential decision is approved by the parliament, the statement by
the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry said Friday.

“The commercial boat Advantage arrived in Feodosiya with the aim of
delivering cargo within the framework of the Ukrainian – American exercises.
The cargo is aimed not at construction of a mythical “NATO base” in Crimea,
but for accommodation of participants in the exercises, first of all
Ukrainian officers and soldiers. There were no foreign troops on board (as
some provocation reports say),” the document went on.

As the boat is commercial, its arrival to the Feodosiya port is regulated by
norms of international trade law and demands no additional authorization by
the parliament, the Defense and Foreign Ministries say. It was admitted by
the Cabinet of ministers resolution on May 26, 2006.

Proceeding from these, the two ministries drew to a conclusion that the
blockade of the ship in Feodosiya has “by all means political grounds”. The
main purpose of this action is an attempt of some political forces to boost
public annoyance at the peninsula via their fantasies and sheer falsities
and, thus, to reach their own political goals, which have nothing to do with
the interests of the Ukrainian people, as the whole, and the Crimean
population, in particular.

The organizers of the Crimean protests, the Communist Party of Ukraine, the
Party of Regions, the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine and the United
Social Democratic Party demanded resignation of the Defense and Foreign
Ministers.                                            -30-
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
             Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13.   STAY OF UNARMED FOREIGN MILITARY CONTINGENT IN

                    UKRAINE MEETS UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION
 
Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006
KYIV – Stay of an unarmed foreign military contingent complies with the
Ukrainian legislation. As Verkhovna Rada sources told Ukrinform, events,
which developed around the Feodosia port have a political underlying reason.
 
According to a source, which preferred to stay unknown, the President of
Ukraine, under NSDC recommendation, resolved to admit army units of
some states to participate in exercises together with units of the Ukrainian
Armed Forces.

Among these, there was the US engineering unit, which was involved in
preparing training base for joint Ukrainian – American exercises Sea Breeze
2006. Not only NATO units, but also other neighboring countries, including
Russia, Moldova and others, were supposed to take part in the exercises.

The decision by the President wasn’t supported by the parliament. In
February the repeated consideration of the decision by the parliament on the
eve of the election was postponed for later. For Ukraine could fulfill the
assumed obligations, an unarmed unit of the US Navy was decided to be
admitted to Ukraine before the presidential decision is approved by the
parliament.

Personal weapons of the American military (rifles, guns) must be kept at
Ukraine’s military storage facilities or be sent to the USA. In these
conditions, under the Ukrainian legislation, the stay of the foreign
military unit in Ukraine is possible without being approved by the
parliament. The American side accepted these conditions.

The foreign unit arrived in Simferopol by air and their weapons and the
construction enginery was delivered on boat to Feodosia, where it is guarded
by the customs service. Thus, the fact of arrival of an armed foreign
military contingent is not true.

This information was supported by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. As
Ukrinform reported, it issued a statement saying the information by some
political forces about intentions by the US naval officers to construct a
NATO military base near Feodosia, which is circulating in the media, is
false.

As the Ukrainian Defense Ministry explained, on May 29 the American merchant
cargo ship Advantage called in Feodosia within the framework of the
Ukrainian – American tactical exercises Sea Breeze 2006, which delivered
enginery and construction materials within the framework of technical aid to
the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
14.    UKRAINIAN NSDC AT ITS SPECIAL SESSION RESOLVES
TO CONTINUE PREPARATIONS FOR SEA BREEZE 2006 EXERCISES
 
Ukrinform, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 2, 2006

KYIV – The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine at its Friday

special session tackled the situation in Crimea and resolved to continue
preparations for holding multinational military exercises Sea Breeze 2006
and Tight Knot 2006, in correspondence with the presidential decree of
January 31, 2006.

As acting Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Volodymyr
Horbulin said, the Ukrainian Defense and Internal Affairs Ministries are
instructed to ensure order while preparing and holding multinational
military exercises Sea Breeze 2006 and Tight Knot 2006.

Within two days a relevant decree by President Viktor Yushchenko will be
readied.

As it was noted during the NSDC session, local self-government bodies,
aggravating the situation around international exercises, stepped beyond
frameworks of their authorities and harmed international image of Ukraine.

According to Horbulin, the special session also resolved to analyze
incidents of interference by citizens of other countries, including of
Russia, in protest actions in populated areas in Crimea and blocking roads.
If the information is confirmed, these persons will be deported and may be
even declared persons non grata in Ukraine.

As Ukrinform reported, a group of Russian politicians, including Director of
the Institute of CIS States, Russian Duma deputy Konstantin Zatulin, are
presently staying in Crimea. As Zatulin stated at a press conference in
Simferopol on June 1, Russia is worried about unload of the cargo, which is
aimed for the Sea Breeze exercises, from the NATO ship in the Feodosia port.

According to him, this fact, as well as arrival of American soldiers to
Ukraine, proves that some political forces are trying to involve Ukraine in
the North-Atlantic Alliance. “The developments in Feodosia mean the
beginning of the combat season, all kinds of clashes and conflicts, which we
don’t rule out,” Russian deputy predicted, saying that Ukrainian
authorities, by way of intending to hold the international exercises,
deliberately “involve Sevastopol in the conflict.”           -30-

———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15.                     THE NOT SO GREAT NATO DEBATE

A COMMENT ON THE NATO DEBATE: By Martin Nunn
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #705, Article 15
Washington, D.C., Sunday, June 4, 2006

The recent debacle over the joint NATO / Ukrainian Sea Breeze 2006 exercise
can be viewed in two ways, firstly as another example of the Ukrainian
Government shooting its self in the foot through what can only be described
as naivety when it comes to government communication and secondly on the
almost total blindness to public opinion in Ukraine of the NATO management
system that verges on irresponsibility.

Should we blame the government of Ukraine? Frankly no.  The Ukrainian
government now are taking concrete steps to improve their whole
communications system within government, with the people and with the
international community, but this will take time as there are attitudes and
mentalities to change before any system will work effectively. The same
cannot be said for NATO.

NATO represents some of the most sophisticated countries on earth with
access to the top public relations and communications expertise available
today and yet we end up with a US NATO vessel arriving in a pro Russian
enclave port on the very border between Ukraine and Russia where there has
already been tension with apparently little warning and no public
preparation. This is not irresponsible it’s blind arrogance.  There is no
excuse for such blunders which can do nothing for the cause of NATO
membership what-so-ever.

Whilst NATO may bristle with the latest military toys, their PR machine
actually seems sadly lacking as the past few years can only underscore.  In
the late 1990’s  I was personally involved in a project to take journalists
from Ukraine to work on a rotational basis in the NATO press centre in
Brussels just so that they could learn what NATO really does and report it
back to the people.

It was a good plan supported by the NATO management team in Kiev but the top
brass decided it was unnecessary. Since then what has NATO done to assuage
the fears of generations bought up to consider NATO to be the ultimate evil
or to educate teenage Ukrainians who were too young to remember the rhetoric
of the past:?

The answer is absolutely nothing but play war games on a scale not allowed
in Western Europe. No public education, no public debate, no public
consultation, no seminars, no education in schools and universities and few
meaningful press visits apart from the odd coach load of pop stars and
celebrities.  Frankly the efforts of NATO to woo Ukraine are a bit like the
wayward son being ordered to woo the neighbour’s ugly daughter, doomed to
failure right from the start.

The Ukrainian government have neither the finances nor the resources to
indulge in a large scale NATO promotions campaign, nor would it be right for
them to do so but again the same cannot be said for NATO.  It therefore begs
the question why is NATO with its access to top communications expertise and
large budgets making such a hash of wooing Ukraine?

The only conclusion I can come to is that NATO like our wayward son does not
want to ‘marry’ Ukraine and this whole process is just a charade.   If they
really wanted Ukraine to become a member state then why are they not turning
on the charm machine and setting up the sort of systems necessary to ensure
that port visits such as the one we have recently experienced go smoothly?

Perhaps, because Ukrainian membership of NATO would greatly upset mother
Russia at a very delicate time in NATO (read European) / Russian relations?
Yet to say no to Ukraine would be politically unacceptable and could easily
drive Ukraine back toward old allies.

It would be so much more convenient if the people of Ukraine were to
exercise their democratic right and decide in a national referendum against
membership as then the whole problem would conveniently disappear. Once
again Ukraine is but a pawn in larger games thus I tend to agree with
Georgiy Kryuchkov, Ukraine should, like Switzerland, declare its neutrality
to the world and: a plague on both their houses.                -30-
=======================================================
NOTE: Martin Nunn MCIPR is Chief Executive of Whites International
Public Relations in Kyiv, Ukraine, E-mail martin.nunn@wipr.com.ua
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
16.                   JOINING NATO – 20:6 TO UKRAINE

ANALYSIS: By Oleksandr Paily (in Ukrainian)
Translated by Eugene Ivantsov
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, May 29, 2006

Lately MP from SPU Mykola Rudkovsky has stated SPU would never sign
coalition agreement which implies Ukraine’s membership in NATO.

“You know it’s a matter of principle for SPU. We believe that only basic
principles are to be included to the initial agreement. If these principles
are not observed or someone tries to alter them and add new ones we won’t
sign the agreement”, MP said.

It’s quite possible Rudkovsky is a bit cunning saying that SPU rejects NATO
because of their engagements to voters. In fact, SPU electorate is the most
persistent anti-Kuchma part of the society.

These voters mostly represent rural areas of central Ukraine. The question
of NATO membership is probable the least important for Moroz’s supporters.
That’s why entering NATO has nothing to do with SPU pre-election
engagements.

If most people knew the consequences of NATO membership they would
immediately pursue politicians up to EU border.
Any specialist understands that entering NATO Ukraine would get more
benefits than problems.

                       JOINING NATO: PROS AND CONS
PROS: TWENTY
1) Security guarantees according to which attack on Ukraine would mean
attacking all NATO member countries (at the moment there 26 member
countries).

2) Nuclear guarantees, according to which attack on Ukraine using nuclear,
chemical or bacteriological weapons will entail adequate reaction from
nuclear weapon states (the US, GB, France).

3) NATO membership decreases the possibilities of starting a war against
Ukraine. Ukraine is strategically important, unlike neutral Finland and
Sweden.

4) Strengthening of political independence. According to NATO national
security standards, safety from foreign intervention (originated from not
NATO members) to internal affairs and political process is secured by the
organization.

5) NATO does not demand quartering their military bases on the territory of
Ukraine. Ukraine has sufficient military, human and technical resources to
guarantee its security itself having NATO as a means of political protection
and being aware of support given by 26 NATO member countries in case of a
war.

That’s why Ukraine’s membership will have “bureaucracy” nature without
building any new military bases near Russian border. This aspect should be
continuously stressed which may relieve tension in Ukrainian-Russian
relations.

6) Absolute impossibility of provocations in foreign policy against Ukraine,
like the recent conflict concerning Tuzla Island.
7) NATO membership will strengthen Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Separatism will be deprived of its foundations since separatists will have
to take into account reality and get accustomed to live in an independent
and united Ukraine.

8) Considerable complication of exerting economical and energy pressure on
Ukraine from Russian Federation, taking into consideration the reaction of
26 powerful countries that will back Ukraine.

9) NATO membership will end up Ukraine’s dependence on Russia and will make
such dependence impossible in future. Russia will understand that, and thus,
will have to establish equal partnership relations as it does with other
West-European NATO members – Hungary, the Czech Republic.

10) Relatively small admission fee – neither NATO nor Ukraine are going to
quarter their armed forces. NATO guarantees safety charging very moderate
prices. For such expenses Ukraine would never have that level of security
even if it spent the whole budget for military expenditure.

11) NATO does not demand rearmament as well as it does not urge member
countries to buy arms produced in NATO member countries. Each country is
free to choose armament and countries-producers. Ukrainian arms produced in
the USSR will cause no problems when entering NATO. Lots of NATO members

use Soviet armament (MIG-29 pursuit planes, for instance).

12) NATO does not demand canceling of previous technocratic military
agreements. Russia collaborates with Italy and Germany in this field.

13) Sharp increase of foreign investment after entering NATO, since security
and economic are interrelated. For example, foreign investments to Poland,
the Czech Republic and Hungary increased 3.5 times (Romania – by 141%),
after these countries have entered NATO.

14) Investments from NATO countries are, unlike Russian, legal. According to
“Transparency International” 10 NATO countries are among the least corrupt
countries in the top 20.

15) Joining NATO will give chances for competitive defense industry
enterprises. Poland and Slovakia are vivid examples.
16) Joining NATO is the way of bettering Ukraine’s international investment
image which will promote private businesses. Having entered NATO Ukraine
will forever loose the image of post-Soviet country with the entire set of
stereotypes and labels like corruption, crime etc.

17) NATO membership will raise Ukraine’s chances for EU membership.

19) Non-joining NATO will make a fringe image for Ukraine which will force
it out of decent international politics making it dependant on other
countries.

20) NATO has a number of respected members: the US, GB, France, Germany,
Turkey. Entering NATO Ukraine can enter this elite club as an equal partner,
jumping over several “footsteps” at a time.

20) NATO membership will give Ukraine the chance to consolidate under
“hothouse conditions”, i.e. NATO protection.

CONS: ONLY SIX PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NATO MEMBERSHIP
There are only six problems associated with NATO membership for Ukraine.
However, some of them are potential. In practice, for East-European
countries, these potential problems have never become real.

1. Ukraine will have to give military support to NATO allies in case of a
war. NATO geography is quite broad: Europe, Atlantics, North America.
However no one has ever run a risk of attacking NATO, even during the Cold
War.

2. Possible increase of military expenditure in Ukraine from 1.4% of GDP to
1.7-2.0% of GDP (the rate kept in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary).
Ukraine will have to be especially attentive to NATO demands when getting
ready to enter this organization.
3. By estimate, membership dues will be set at the level of USD 40-50
million a year.

4. Possible temporal deterioration of relations with Russia caused by loss
of control over Ukraine. Possible quartering of Russian armed forces near
Ukrainian border.

However, real confrontation is highly improbable taking into consideration
motivation of the both sides. In the modern environment Russian cannot win
the war against the US and NATO. On the other hand both sides understand
SUCH war can’t be won. It’s too much of a risk.

5) Ukraine’s membership will stimulate Russia to end up economic relations
profitable for Ukraine. However, it’s been happening since 1991 and had
nothing to do with NATO or Europe integration.

At the same time cooperation with Russia in the field of military-industrial
complex on the markets of the “third countries” is not very promising.

6. Increased threat of terrorists’ attack at Ukraine since Ukraine will
become part of Europe. However, there was not a single terrorist act on the
territory of Central and Eastern Europe as terrorists do not consider these
countries their enemies. Moreover, terrorist assaults are improbable in
Ukraine since it fairly handled Crimean Tatars who are, as known, Muslims.

Recently even Belarus understood profits of NATO membership. Belorussian
Defense Minister Leonid Maltsev stated that Belarus could profit from
Ukraine’s NATO membership as a means of collaboration with the Alliance.

Even today, despite of isolation, Belarus participates in a number of
international NATO programs.

All presented arguments in favor of NATO membership for Ukraine are quite
simple and evident. Only those who either do not want Ukrainian people to
exercise their right for security or just perfect fools do not understand
that. Whatever you may say, there are few idiots among Ukrainian
politicians.

It’s high time politicians thought about voters’ interests instead of
rejecting them in exchange for partnership with foreign businessmen.

Otherwise it will be treachery.                    -30-
———————————————————————————————–
http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/5/29/5330.htm
———————————————————————————————–

[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. UKRAINE’S KHARKIV REGION VOTES TO GIVE RUSSIAN
                     LOCAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGE STATUS

Interfax-Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Saturday, June 3, 2006

KHARKIV – The legislature in Ukraine’s Kharkiv  region  has voted to
give Russian, widely spoken in the region, local official  status  under
the  European  Charter  for  Regional and Minority Languages.

The resolution, which received the votes of 107 of the 150 Regional
Council  deputies,  means  Russian will enjoy official status in Kharkiv
under a  Ukrainian  law  of 2003 that ratified the European Charter. The
resolution is unlikely to be recognized by the Ukrainian government.

“We  are  not  giving  any  status  to the Russian language. It has
existed  since  the ratification of the charter by [parliament] anyway,”
Regional  Council deputy Vladimir Alexeyev, who is a member of the
Party of Regions, said in a speech in the Council.

The  leader  of  the  Party  of  Regions  is former Ukrainian prime
minister  Viktor  Yanukovych, who lost the last presidential election to
Viktor Yushchenko.

Oleh  Shapovalov,  a  Council deputy representing People’s Alliance
Our Ukraine,  a  pro-Yushchenko party, said, citing the legal department
of the Kharkiv   regional  administration,  that  the  Council  was  not
authorized to make decisions on language issues.

A national census in 2001 indicates that in Kharkiv region 44.3% of
the population  consider  Russian  their  mother  tongue  and 83.1% have
perfect command of it.

The  Council  also  planned  a  vote  of  no confidence in regional governor
Arsen Avakov on Saturday. Meanwhile, thousands of people, both
supporters  and  adversaries of Avakov, were holding a rally outside the
Council headquarters.

Council  deputy  Lyubov  Chub,  a Party of Regions member, told the
rally that  Yanukovych  had been unable to come to the rally because the
airplane  that  was  to  bring  him to Kharkiv had been grounded at Kyiv
airport.

In  the  meantime,  parliamentary deputies including those from the
Party of  Regions  and  the  People’s  Alliance  Our  Ukraine arrived in
Kharkiv on Saturday.                                  -30-
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.interfax.com/3/162437/news.aspx
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
     You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
18.                 VOLUNTARY SPIRITUAL SERVITUDE
                  Reasons why Russianization is still going on in Ukraine

By Marta Onufriv, Journalist, Toronto (in Ukrainian)
Translated by Natalia Butenko
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Thu, May 25, 2006

Lesya Ukrainka’s statement taken from her open letter addressed to French
poets, served as the title for this article. The statement is as follows:
“Disgrace to those free poets who, in front of strangers, shake the chains
they have freely put on. Servitude is far more disgusting if it is
voluntary.”

It is sad that the words about spiritual servitude written by the poetess
over 100 years ago are still relevant for Ukrainians.

Behind their relevance lies a threat to the functioning of the Ukrainian
state and the free development of the Ukrainian nation. You know that
yesterday’s or today’s orientation to Moscow issued from the left and other
non-State forces, is dangerous for Ukrainian state.

The roots of Ukrainian spiritual servitude are deep, and determined, in
particular, by the attitude of each Ukrainian or different social groups to
the mother tongue and its derivations – spirituality, culture etc.

The people who lost their identity since coming to a certain extent under
the expansive Russianization influence, are especially concerned in.

Worse is to come – it means actual parades around regional status of the
Russian language, i.e. open neglecting of the Official Language of Ukraine
Law.

It is obvious that the last one is the pre-election speculation no more,
therefore together with further inertia of existing State power it is
considered as a direct threat to the territorial wholeness of Ukraine. So,
why now without special efforts from the side of Moscow directed to, the
Russianization is still going on in Ukraine?

In author’s opinion, the reasons of Russianization are as follows:

                                        THE NEW ONES
1. Balancing of the new State power between East and West, between Soviet
and national priorities. Absence of concrete official program on how to
return the Ukrainian language to all the spheres of life. In fact, the key
governmental posts are taken up by the people, in particular, the Minister
for Education Stanislav Nikolayenko, who are far from being engaged into the
national interests.
2. Far and wide and unpunished neglecting of the Official Language of
Ukraine Law.
3. Lack of State grants directed to the development of competitive Ukrainian
books, newspapers, and magazines and highly professional Ukrainian mass
media.

                                            THE OLD ONES
1. Pliability to the Russianization was as an opportunity of surviving for
many generations of Ukrainians.
2. Lack of nationally conscious intelligence in the Russianized regions of
Ukraine.
3. Absence of national education in Ukrainian society in whole and in
families in particular.
4. Lack of popular scientific literature concerning the Russianization which
would be adequately understood by the most of population.

THE LANGUAGER AS AN INDEX OF SURVIVING UKRAINIAN NATION

The invaders of every stripe understood better than today’s officials and
national politicians that the elimination of this or that nation begins not
only from the prohibiting of their mother tongue, but even from as though
innocent fitting of the defeated people’s language to the winner’s one.

Not excepting that deliberate manipulating to the nation’s code memory
provokes the loss of its active rebuff and makes the nation dependent of,
and even leads to its elimination as an identical ethnos.

As for the former USSR, it’s a generally acknowledged fact that for many
years the GRU (Russian abbreviation from Main Intelligence Department) was
elaborating special programs directed to the mass hysteria provoking among
the population.

Obviously, the present kind of GRU makes adequate efforts in order to
maintain status quo of the Russian language or Russianized Ukrainian
orthography, and it is considered as a distinctive springboard of Ukraine’s
return to the colonial status.

(Ukrainian linguists should work at vice versa programs

The indisputable fact for each nation and especially for Ukrainians living
in post-colonial period, is as follows: just mother tongue will help to keep
not only their national identity, but guarantee the future for Ukraine as a
country.

SOME FACTS FROM MARTYROLOGY OF THE UKRAINAIN LANGUAGE
All sorts of occupiers who wanted to settle down in Ukraine, eliminated both
the language and intellectual elite who, of course, is the highest
representative of each nation.

It is to be remarked that the occupiers revealed their cruel and merciless
attitude especially to the representatives of writer circles as talismans of
national identity.

Austro-Hungarian empire, Rzeczpospolita, and tsarist Russia were not the
exceptions. All of them understood very well that the time or, most likely,
unsettled national question would lead to the disintegration of their
empire.

Therefore they hurried to put into practice the denationalization of
dependent nations by mean of their language elimination. The present example
you are not to go far for is as follows: the denationalization of Bielarus
nation made them unable to repulse the authoritarian “batska” (“father” in
Bielorussian) Lukashenka’s regime.

Neither Austro-Hungarian empire nor Rzeczpospolita were, to put it mildly,
tolerant in respect of the Ukrainian language. Overcoming big obstacles, it
was achieved the limited functioning of the Ukrainian language in Poland.

However, a special cruelty in respect of all Ukrainian distinguished tsarist
Russia. It is worth reminding the sad documents of that period: Valuyev’s
instruction (1863) forbidding the Ukrainian language, including books
printing..

As an example of unquenchable imperial impudence and extreme chauvinism was
the statement of Valuyev, the Minister for Interior Affairs of Russia:
“There no independent Malorussian (Malorussia is the neglecting name of
Ukraine; Malorussia means “small Russia”) language was, is and will be
whenever”.

Another document of that period is the Yemsk edict (1876). This addition to
the above mentioned Valueyev’s instruction was directed to the total and
final elimination of the Ukrainian language, in particular, in the kingdom
of culture. According to that document, the import of Ukrainian books,
translations into Ukrainian, theatrical performances in Ukrainian etc, were
prohibited.

The Bolsheviks, as a matter of fact, representatives of another empire – the
blood-red one, surpassed their ancestors: they were applying special
sadistic methods in order to eliminate not only the Ukrainian language, but
also Ukrainian intellectual elite.

 
In order to reveal Ukrainian national elements with the aim of their further
eliminating, the soviet regime provoked so called national renovation.

During so called Ukrainianization which took place in Kharkiv in 1927, it
was appraised the compromise general orthography owing to the efforts of
Ukrainian philologists and linguists representing all the areas of Ukraine
which was tore in pieces by occupiers.

The dictionary created in 1929 on the basis of just mentioned orthography
was named as “the dictionary of Holoskevich” after its regulator.

It is worth remarking that the Kharkiv’s orthography didn’t appear on the
blank space, but it harmoniously blended with the linguistic stream of
Ukraine created for many centuries.

In particular, “The Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language” in 4 volumes
(author Hrinchenko), official orthography worded by the philologist Ohiyenko
(Metropolitan Illarion), and “The Main Rules of Ukrainian Orthography”
prepared by Ukrainian Academy of Sciences etc.

However, the farce of Ukrainianization was very short: the authorities
declared the dictionary of Holoskevich as seditious one, and prohibited it
as the speaker of bourgeois nationalism. Instead of it the new orthography
was created.

As eloquent may be considered the fact as follows: the process over the
Society of Deliberation of Ukraine was the first Bolshevik enactment
directed to the elimination of intellectual elite of our country, and it
covered the wide range of Ukrainian philologists.

There were three linguists in that dock, and one of them was Hrihoriy
Holoskevich. His life was as a payment for the dictionary created by him.
You see, how dangerous the professionally regulated Ukrainian language was
for Moscow!

Another fact is very expressive too. The last victims of the same
totalitarian system on the eve of so called “perestroika” (reconstruction)
were the representatives of writing circles: Valeriy Marchenko, Vasyl Stus,
Oleksa Tykhiy, and Yuriy Lytvyn.

Doesn’t this short list of enactments and victims of occupier regimes
testify about exclusive value of Ukrainian, i.e. value of its orthography?
Why the occupiers understood and understand better than Ukrainians where

our strength and weakness in?!

     POLITICAL ASPECT OF RUSSIANIZED ORTHOGRAPHY
Most of Ukrainian linguists fighting for the orthographical norms of 1927 to
be returned, issue from humanitarian positions and avoid, at the same time,
the political aspect of this problem. They establish the fact of ancient
origin of Ukrainian letter and phoneme “?” [g] and don’t accent the reader’s
attention on the interesting conclusion: “?” is the confirmation of ancient
origin and independence not only of the Ukrainian language but also
Ukrainian nation.

It is obvious that existence of the letter and phoneme “?” [g] was in
contradiction with the Moscow’s “elder brother’s position” and “common
cradle of three nations” (Russian, Ukrainian and Bielorussian). Therefore,
it was to be eliminated.

Just this letter confirmed that Moscoviya was created far more later than
Kyiv Rus, and as a consequence, the conclusion that Ukrainians and Russians
are not of common origin become obvious. By the way, Russians as a nation
are a blend of many Asian nations, and Slav element is 15-20%.

Please note that we tell about formation of the nations and not about
migration or mixed matrimonies taking place later.

Additionally, the letter and phoneme “?” [g] which is common to the
languages of East and West Europe, and not Moscoviya, confirmed the
belonging of Ukrainian nation to European society. The conclusion is as
follows: Ukrainians mustn’t have special feelings to Russia. All the more,
Ukrainians as an ancient and distinct nation must choose its own independent
way.

Only few of Ukrainian linguists tell about the fact that thousands of
Ukrainian words were eliminated from using during Bolshevik regime. It was
done not only to approach the Ukrainian language to the Russian, but to
provoke in Ukrainians the feeling of inferiority.

All the more, it was necessary to educate them as janizaries and fatherless
nation. Obliterating from our memory mother tongue, spiritual and cultural
values, we receive in result the generations of maloroses, khokhlis
(scornful nickname done by Russians to Ukrainians), soviets, separatists
etc.

So called national unconsciousness is not only the worship to a strange
culture, in this case to the Russian one, but neglecting all truly national.

National unconsciousness is not only the pine for slave bondage but also
crazy resistance to everything national which is trying to overcome all the
preceding obstacles.

It is said that Ukrainian is the soul of the nation. Will Ukrainians manage
to rise to their feet, go out from their spiritual servitude using strange
(Russian) language or Moscow-like altered “modern language”?

Why Ukrainians haven’t so necessary protecting mechanism? Everything issued
from Moscow works against the nation, therefore, it is to be thrown out to
the dust-heap of history as soon as possible!

  THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE OCEAN
It seems to be not worth waiting for positive changes for the better in the
language policy of Ukraine. Even if the circumstances are favourable, the
mass returning to the truly Ukrainian orthography will delay for many years.

Therefore, it is very important not only to save the other side of the ocean
the language which is not maimed by, but also protect it from the new
Russianization influence.

Additionally, the linguists from diaspora when taking part in the
orthography commissions must uphold the orthography 1927 with more
persistence and more arguments, and not comply to such an apology for
linguists as academic Rusanyvskiy.

The problems are in diaspora too. Last time, in view of opening by
new-comers the broadcasts and magazines, the threat of disappearing of
Moscow’s touches free Ukrainian language rose up.

The author doesn’t want to judge all the new-arrived workers of Ukrainian
informational space of Canada and USA. No doubts, there are personalities
who blended with the dictionary of Holoskevich and make their professional
and patriotic work here. However, there are quite a number of those whom
tomorrow’s day in diaspora cannot be trusted to.

Something strange happens with those representatives of diaspora who has
lived here since post-war years, born in Canada or USA, and studied the
course of Ukraineology. It is about Ukrainian mass media. Some of their
workers are competing in fast applying in mass media lexicon the soviet
words: “futbol” instead of “kopaniy myach”, “sportsmen” instead of
“sportovets”, “mer” (Engl. – mayor) instead of “posadnik”, “khockey” instead
of “hockey” (all the words are done in Ukrainian transliteration).

A special alarm arouses the transliteration of the foreign origin words
containing letters “h” and “g”. Ukrainian mass media still go on “monkeying”
this transliteration from Russia. It is worth reminding that in contrast to
the Russian language, Ukrainian has all the corresponding sounds: “g” – “?”
and “h – “?”.

Not long ago, it could be happen the international scandal if the ex
vice-president of USA Al Gore knew that he was called by official mass media
of Ukraine as “Hore”. By the way, the last one sounds in English as a woman
of the most ancient profession (whore).

        SUCH IS THE MODERN UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE.

                                THAT IS THE ARGUMENT
Unfortunately, new authorities did nothing in order to renew the language of
native people of Ukraine, i.e. liquidation of the consequences of colonial
subordination. As if there were not CPSU’s directions: “It is necessary to
approach as much as possible the Ukrainian language to the Russian and other
languages of the Soviet Union until their complete assimilation”.

When the Kharkiv’s orthography was prohibited, the red commissars created
new language commission (1933), and among others there were so called
“linguist” Naum Kaganovich (!) and Khvylya on behalf of Central Committee of
the Bolshevik party.

The document of that period tells of the following: “Additionally to the
questions of scientific terminology, the commission examined the orthography
and changed it by eliminating of artificial isolation of the Ukrainian
language from Russian, i.e. simplifying the orthography and eliminating
nationalistic rules of this orthography that made the Ukrainian language as
Polish and Czech bourgeois culture orientated”.

No comments.
According to Oleksander Ponomaryv (a famous scholar of authority, Ph.D.),
“the orthography of 1933 is considered as such where all the Ukrainian was
eliminated from”. By the way, this orthography with not essential changes is
used in Ukraine hitherto, and is called as “the modern Ukrainian language”.

It is worth paying attention that Kyiv’s orthography was creating and
applying during golodomor (famine torment) of 1932-33, mass deportations,
repressions, and annihilation of Ukrainian intelligence.

You see what methods were applied by Bolsheviks for eliminating of the soul
of Ukrainian nation. The list of regions where the Russian language goes on
reigning, serves as a testimony of this. They are: Kyiv, Poltava, Kharkiv,
Donetsk, Odesa etc.

It is worth remarking that the outrage upon the Ukrainian language took
place till the nineties of the last century. Some changes in the language
policy were outlined in the eve of proclaiming of the Independence of
Ukraine.

In 1990 at the Institute of Linguistics of Ukraine the orthography
commission was created, but it was condemned to failure by Kravchuk and Kº
because a famous Russifier Rusanyvskiy was appointed as its Head..

Despite of this, the progressive linguists insisted on the returning to the
Kharkiv’s orthography (with small changes). With this aim, there were
organized the International Congress of linguists specializing on the
Ukrainian language (1991) and the National Orthography Commission at the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (1994).

In the last one the famous Ukrainian linguists from many countries of the
world took part, among them Andriy Hornyatkevych (Canada), Yuriy
Sherekh-Shevelyov (USA).

It was created another working group headed by Vasyl Nymchuk, Director
of the Institute of the Ukrainian Language, and the members: Oleksander
Ponomaryv, Nina Totska, Ivan Vykhovanets, Hrihoriy Pivtorak etc.

The authorities furiously resisted to the Kharkiv’s orthography. The
Academic Rusanyvskiy being far from appraising the linguistic rules offered,
called the work of the group as “sabotage in the lingual front”.

By the nineties of the last century there in the linguistic environment was
the one only Ukrainian island, i.e. Taras Shevchenko’s Ukrainian Society
“Prosvyta” (Education). Just this society edited the brochure where the new
orthography was issued.

In preface to this brochure it was said the following: “The official
language of Ukraine must have its own orthography and not repeat the
orthographical misunderstandings of the former centre of empire”.

If the adepts of Kyiv’s orthography were aware of exact reasons of
Russianization, and not only of tragic periods of annihilation of the
Ukrainian language, then most of them would return to the Kharkiv’s
orthography, that clean lingual spring, free from Moscow’s filth.

 SEPARATIVE LINGUAL PARADE AND ITS OVERCOMING
Today’s situation is painful for all who in defiance of persecutions and
malicious attacks from the Soviet regime defended Ukrainian positions, who
was uncompromised in the struggle against anti-popular regimes of Kravchuk
and Kuchma, who pined their hopes on the orange team.

It’s a pity, but through the debates about moral and Trypillia’s pots Viktor
Yushchenko missed another threat for Ukraine, i.e. breakdown according to
the lingual indications.

As a result, we could see in the future the independent navigation of
Russian-speaking regions and their approaching to the banks of Russia. This
trouble is to be avoided immediately, and the actions are to be decisive. It
is possible to fulfill it through the consolidation of all national and
patriotic forces with the most active young people attracting.

The main thing is to make the authorities waking up from the lethargic
prosperity, and elaborate the effective mechanism for functioning and
protection of the Ukrainian language as official one.

Additionally, Serhiy Holovatiy is to be removed from the lingual questions
resolving, as he came to the point of uttering an absurdity – he is
initiating the language referendum.

It is nonsense, as both of the languages (Ukrainian and Russian) were not
developing in the same conditions. Quiet the contrary, the Ukrainian
language was cruelly persecuted and eliminated by all occupier regimes.

And why we hear nothing in respect from the side of national and patriotic
deputies we voted not long ago for? And Ukrainian journalists must tell
their decisive word too.                       -30-
———————————————————————————————–
At the end, the author would like to complete the list of outstanding
Ukrainian linguists who did their best the beautiful Ukrainian language to
be saved and could go on developing. They are as follows: Smotritskiy,
Zizaniya, Berenda, Pavlovskiy, Zhitetskiy, Mykhalchuk, Krimskiy,
Ogonovskiy, Smal-Stotskiy, Potebnya, Nikovskiy, Synyavskiy, Rudnitskiy
etc. This list is predestinated just for the vice Prime Minister on
humanitarian questions Kyrylenko and the Minister for Education

Nikolayenko.
———————————————————————————————-
LINK: http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/5/25/5302.htm
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
19. THE RISE OF INTEGRAL ANTIAMERICANISM IN RUSSIA
                  MASS MEDIA AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE

By Dr. Andreas Umland, UNIAN News Agency
Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, May 29, 2006

While manifest neo-Nazi trends among youth are, for the first time,
triggering a massive response by the Russian government, thinly veiled, yet
structurally similar tendencies in public and elite discourse continue to
flourish uninhibitedly and may be receiving encouragement from the
Presidential Administration.

Ultranationalism among Russian youth and, to a lesser degree, in party
politics as well as nascent official activity against xenophobia are
receiving increasing attention by Russian and Western observers. Alarmed by
the growing number of victims among foreign students, visitors from abroad
and immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Americas, the Putin administration
has started to take action against escalating skinhead violence.

The Kremlin-directed Russian mass media reports now on a daily basis about
attacks on foreigners and their – often, still hesitant – persecution by the
procuracy. There is also frequent information on various central and local
campaigns (concerts, demonstrations, meetings, etc.) to increase tolerance
und mutual understanding among the young.

The Russian government’s change of course from far-going disregard of the
proliferating neo-Nazi subculture during Putin’s first term to robust
reaction to it in his second term seems less determined by a change of mind
in the Kremlin, than by utilitarian deliberations.

The increasingly blatant behaviour of free-flowing neo-Nazi youth groups is
seen to create an image problem for Russia, and to threaten foreign
investment. Besides, the Kremlin appears to consider large-scale immigration
as an instrument to counteract the dramatic demographic problems of Russia
which is loosing about 700,000 people per year.

Although pragmatic, rather than principled motivations may lay behind the
current official campaign against primitive hate speech, violent attacks and
other obvious forms of extreme xenophobia, the Russian state’s recent open
acknowledgement of this problem is by itself to be welcomed.

On the other hand, less manifest, yet basically similar illiberal tendencies
in public and elite discourse continue to develop with little inhibition and
seem to be gaining influence on mainstream politics, civil society, mass
media and higher education.

Apart from the Putin administration’s own course of gradual curtailment of
democratic procedures and its propagation of a relatively moderate form of
nationalism, and in parallel to the more extreme expression of this trend in
the ranting of the pro-Putin Zhirinovskii party, an intellectually refined
form of deep anti-Westernism and, especially, anti-Americanism is becoming
prominent in Russian expert commentaries and publicism on international
affairs and contemporary history.

The Russian book-market is flooded with anti-liberal pamphlets outlining
fantastic conspiracy theories, bizarre visions of Russian rebirth, and
apocalyptic world views. The authors of such pamphlets include Sergey
Kurginyan, Igor Shafarevich, Oleg Platonov, Maksim Kalashnikov (a pseudonym)
and Sergey Kara-Murza. Moreover, many, if not most of central Russian TV’s
weekly or daily political programmes are converging on a Manichean world
view in which the US is made responsible for most of Russia’s (and,
sometimes, humanity’s) problems.

In prime-time regular “analytical” TV shows like “Odnako [Although]”
(Leont’ev), “Real’naya politika [Real Politics]” (Pavlovsky), “Post Scriptum”

(Pushkov) or “Chelovek i zakon [The Human Being and Law]” (Piromanov),
the recurrent conclusion of many world and some domestic reports is that
the United States’ political or/and intellectual elite is directly or indirectly
involved in hidden malicious actions against the Russians and other nations.

Such denouncing of American foreign behavior goes far beyond the critique of
the current policies of the Bush administration to be found elsewhere, and
is characterized by a paranoid interpretation of current history and plain
hatred of, as well as considerable ignorance about, US American politics,
values and culture.

The, perhaps, most prolific of this class of commentators is Dr Aleksandr
Dugin (b. 1962) who is active in both book publishing and TV production.
Dugin has transformed himself from a lunatic fringe figure openly admitting
his sympathies for various permutations of inter-war fascism in the 1990s to
a “radically centrist” Putin-supporter and well-regarded guest commentator
in mainstream Russian mass media.

Apart from his increasingly frequent participation in talk shows on Russia’s
most important TV channels ORT, RTR and NTV, Dugin also hosts his own
political programme “Vekhi [Signposts]” transmitted via Russia’s new
Orthodox TV channel “Spas [Saving]” (an odd phenomenon in view of Dugin’s
praise for West European occultism and Satanism during the 1990s). He is
also a frequent contributor to various radio programmes as well as such
newspapers as “Rossiiskaya gazeta”, “Literaturnaya gazeta”, “Krasnaya
 zvezda”, etc.

Whereas most nationalist authors and journalists remain within the limits of
traditional Russian anti-Westernism, Dugin’s writings and speeches are
informed by his intimate knowledge various non-Russian forms of
anti-liberalism including West European integral “Traditionalism” (René
Guénon, Julius Evola, Claudio Mutti, etc.), European and American
geopolitics (Alfred Mahen, Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer et al.), the
German so-called “Conservative Revolution” (Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger,
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, etc.) and the francophone, neo-Gramscian
“New Right” (Alain de Benoist, Robert Steuckers).

In most of his public statements, to be sure, Dugin plays down the influence
of Western authors on his thinking, and instead uses the term
“neo-Eurasianism” (an explicit reference to a reputed Russian émigré
intellectual movement of the 1920s and 1930s) – an obvious attempt to hide
his true sources.

In his many books and articles, Dugin draws the picture of an ancient
conflict between

– free-market, capitalist, Atlanticist sea powers (“thallocracies”) that go
back to the sunken world of Atlantis, are in the tradition of the ancient
states of Phoenicia and Carthago, and are now headed by the “mondialist”
United States, on the one side, and

– autarkic, etatistic, Eurasian continental land powers (“tellurocracies”),
originating with the mythic country of “Hyperborea”, continuing the tradition

of the ancient Roman Empire, and now having as its most important
component Russia, on the other.

The secret orders or “occult conspiracies” of these two antagonistic
civilizations-Eternal Rome and Eternal Carthago-have been in an age-old
struggle, an occult Punic war, that has, often, remained hidden to its
participants and even its key figures, but has, nevertheless, determined the
course of world history.

The confrontation is now entering its final stage, the “Great War of the
Continents”. This demands Russia national rebirth via a “conservative” and
“permanent revolution”. The new order to be created would be informed by the
ideology of “National Bolshevism” and an exclusively “geopolitical” approach
to international relations.

A victory in this “Endkampf” (final battle; Dugin uses the German original
as introduced by the Third Reich) against Atlanticism would create a “New
Socialism”, and imply territorial expansion as well as the formation of a
Eurasian bloc of fundamentalist land powers (including, perhaps, a
“traditionalist” Israel!) against intrusive, individualist Anglo-Saxon
imperialism.

Ideas such as these have led many observers to dismiss Dugin as a
non-serious thinker, if not simply a bizarre, temporary phenomenon on
Russia’s fragile political scene. In spite of the many phantasmorgic elements

in his writings, Dugin has by now established himself, however, as the leader
of an influential intellectual movement, “neo-Eurasianism”, that reaches beyond
the lunatic fringe.

Among the current members of the Highest Council of Dugin’s International
Eurasian Movement, for instance, are several relevant Russian political
figures including Minister of Culture Vladimir Sokolov, Presidential Aide
Alsambek Aslakhanov, Federation Council Vice-Speaker Aleksandr Torshin, or
the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Federation
Council Mikhail Margelov. Apart from various other, somewhat less prominent
Russian actors, Dugin’s organization also includes a number of
representatives, mainly academics, from the member countries of the CIS, as
well as some marginal Western intellectuals.

While anti-American views have been a recurring feature of 20th century
Russian interpretations of international affairs, their current
proliferation is different in terms of the quantity and quality of these
views. Anti-Americanism has become a, if not the major feature of Russian
foreign affairs journalism, and incorporates extreme ideas provided by Dugin
and other anti-Western theorists.

Opposition to “American imperialism” seems to be designed to legitimize
Putin’s illiberal politics, and to provide the glue that holds Russia’s
elites together.                            -30-
——————————————————————————————–
Dr. Andreas Umland is German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
Lecturer at the National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv.
——————————————————————————————–
LINK: http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-156002.html
——————————————————————————————–
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Dr. Andreas Umland
Lektor des Deutschen Akademischen Austausch Dienstes
Nationale Taras-Schewtschenko-Universitaet Kiew
http://www.clio-online.de/forscherinnen=1455
http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/Netzwerk/Umland.htm

Post bis 2007 (temporary mailing address): DAAD-Lektorat
Schewtschenko-Universitaet, Deutsche Botschaft Kiew, wul. Bohdana
Chmelnyzkoho 25, UA-01901 Kyjiw, UKRAINE; Efax: +1-661-4573014;
Tel.: +38-044-2786344; Mobil: +38-067-5092275.

DAAD in der Ukraine: http://kiev.daad.de/.
Studieren & Forschen in Deutschland:
http://www.daad.de/deutschland/index.de.html.
LektorInnen- & JobMails: http://www.mitost.de/aktuelles.php?id=1113925244.
Book Series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics & Society”:
http://www.ibidem-verlag.de/spps.html.
Funding for East European academic libraries (in Russian):
http://www.dfg.de/forschungsfoerderung/formulare/download/12_54.pdf.
Praktika fuer angehende UebersetzerInnen:
http://praktika.oei.fu-berlin.de/detail.php?id=410.
———————————————————————————————–
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
20.             “LET POLICY REFLECT THE POPULAR VOTE”

LETTER-TO-THE- EDITOR
: By Mikhail A. Molchanov, Ph.D.
Professor, St. Thomas University, Canada
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #705, Article 20
Washington, D.C., Sunday, June 4, 2006

RE: “Why Did A Russian Professor Fail On His Homework?
Action Ukraine Report (AUR) #701, Article 21, May 26, 2006

Sir, I shall appreciate if you find it possible to publish the following
response to the letter to the editor found in the above referenced
number of your bulletin that contained personal attacks on me and
an attempt to besmirch my professional reputation.

Regards, Mikhail A. Molchanov, Ph.D., Professor,
St. Thomas University, Canada,  molchan@stu.ca
—————————————————————————————-
On May 26, AUR published Volodymyr Hrytsutenko’s letter to the
editor “Why Did A Russian Professor Fail On His Homework?”
which addressed my article “”Let policy reflect the popular vote”
that originally appeared in Kyiv Post. I would like to clarify some
points for the benefit of your readership, if not Mr. Hrytsenko
personally.

First, Mr. Hrytsenko’s own homework might have included checking
my professional credentials before trying to cast in doubt their validity.
He failed to do that, just as he failed to copy his posting to my email,
copying it instead to the head of my department.

Second, I am a citizen of Canada teaching at a Canadian university. I
was born and raised in western Ukraine, and got my first postgraduate
degree from the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In this context, I find
the phrase “a Russian Professor” which the author used to indicate my
nationality as either simply misplaced or deliberately ethnicized for
reasons that smack of plain xenophobia.

Now let’s analyse the letter’s arguments one by one. I never said that
deploying Ukrainian troops to countries like Afghanistan is “easy.” I
simply believe that it would be expected from a new NATO member,
and the government will get out of this way to push the case through the
parliament. Why so? Remember Rumsfeld’s comment on “the old” and
“the new” Europe? I think, Ukraine will find itself rather in the “new”
part, i.e., with Poland and not with France. Let’s not fool ourselves: in

real-political terms, non-participation will not be an option.

To reiterate my explanation of the benefits of Ukraine’s membership in
SES (Single Economic Space), these countries formed a tightly knit
economic complex only few years ago. They are mutually dependent on
each other in practically all areas of the economy, from energy to heavy
industry to electronics production to military procurements.

The bulk of Ukraine’s exports still goes to Russia and the CIS. The studies
of Ukraine’s own economists from the National Institute of. Ukrainian-Russian
Relations (which Mr. Hrytsytenko apparently has never heard of) illustrate
this mutual economic dependency in minute detail. Russia’s direct subsidies
to Ukraine over the span of 10 years exceeded the amount of funds jointly
disbursed by the IMF and the World Bank combined. Mr. Hrytsytenko
students might be well advised to read Gregory Krasnov and Josef Brada’s
study of the issue to get an idea.

In regards to my “lecturing the legitimate Ukrainian government”, thank you,
Mr. Hrytsytenko for quoting. Just read again: “It is extremely naive and
disrespectful of Ukraine’s authorities to believe that the country’s full
membership in the Single Economic Space with Russia and Belarus may
somehow undermine Ukraine’s prospects for reform and hence its prospects
for European integration.”

Indeed, in simpler terms, I believe that those who say that Ukraine will
lose its European chance by joining the SES are severely underestimating the
ability of the legitimate Ukrainian government to protect the national
interest of Ukraine. Hence, these people disrespect their own government.

As for the letters’ description of the Party of the Regions’ electorate as
somehow duped by “docile media, administrative pressure and open
coercion”, this is also disrespectful of Ukrainian voters, the one third of
the nation who dared to vote differently from Mr. Hrytsytenko and his,
let’s hope, independent-minded and highly resistant to intimidation
students.

As an official observer of the 3rd round of Ukraine’s presidential elections
2004 and a member of the delegation that reported directly to the Prime
Minister of Canada, I am happy to reconfirm that, apart from minor
infractions, there was no open coercion or administrative pressure
applied en masse in the elections that brought the original orange coalition
to power. The elections 2006 in Ukraine were universally acknowledged as
free and fair.

The rest of the letter with its concluding round of a personal attack and
 the author’s clumsy attempt at intimidation (“backlash and dwindling
support for Russia in Ukraine”) does not really merit a response. Just a
final note for Mr. Hrytsytenko’s thoughtful students: in the final run,
Russia will survive, with or without any support coming from Ukraine.

The thrust of my article was, will Ukraine be better off without Russia?
Why or why not? This is the question you should really ponder, and
remember that rhetorical frenzy will hardly help you solve it.  -30-
——————————————————————————————
Mikhail A. Molchanov, Ph.D., Professor, St. Thomas University,
Canada,  molchan@stu.ca
——————————————————————————————-
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
           Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR    

========================================================
21. OMELJAN PRITSAK, NOTED SCHOLAR OF UKRAINE DEAD AT 87
                 Born April 7, 1919 in Luka, Ukraine, learned 12 languages

Associated Press (AP), Boston, Massachusetts, Sat, June 3, 2006

BOSTON –Omeljan Pritsak, a Harvard University professor and scholar of
Ukrainian studies, has died. Pritsak died of complications from heart
disease on Monday at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said Peter
T. Woloschuk, a spokesman for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.
He was 87.

The historian and linguist maintained that the study of Ukraine was crucial
because the country straddled the boundary between western and eastern
cultures. Pritsak advocated for Ukrainian studies as a legitimate academic
endeavor distinct from Russian studies.

He founded the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and helped establish
endowed chairs of Ukrainian studies. Pritsak served as the research
institute’s first director, a post he kept for almost 20 years.

Pritsak was born April 7, 1919, in Luka, Ukraine, and learned to speak 12
languages. He joined the Harvard faculty as a professor of linguistics and
Turkology in 1964.

In Cambridge, Pritsak became known for his exuberant energy and was
nicknamed “The Tornado” by his staff. During his career, he wrote more than
500 books, articles and scholarly works.

Pritsak is survived by his wife Larysa Hvozdik Pritsak; his daughter, Irene
Pritsak; and two grandchildren. A funeral service was held Friday at Christ
the King Ukrainian Catholic Church in Boston, followed by a private burial
service. A memorial service at Harvard is being planned for the fall. -30-
————————————————————————————————
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
22. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT REMEMBERS BYKIVNYA VICTIMS
           They must have refused to betray their motherland, language, church
                   We must stop being afraid of our history Yushchenko says.

Office of the President of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, May 21, 2006

KYIV – Victor Yushchenko and his wife, Kateryna, have honored the victims
of the totalitarian regime in Bykivnya. The President placed flowers on the
Bykivnya Monument and then attended a service for the dead.

In his speech, the Head of State said the tragedy in Bykivnya was similar to
the atrocities committed at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Dachau.

“It is impossible to imagine how one could slaughter one hundred thousand
people in Bykivnya. What is really terrible is that nobody will tell us why
these people were killed. What was their fault? They must have refused to
betray their motherland, language, church and their national roots,” he
said.

Mr. Yushchenko pledged to spare no effort to find out actual causes of the
massacre and prevent genocide in the future. He said this tragedy affected
the whole nation. “The Bykivnya tragedy is not the tragedy of the Kyiv
region alone, for today we are speaking about the affiliates of the Bykivnya
mass grave in Vinnytsya, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Lviv,” he metaphorically
explained.

The President said the government of Ukraine would soon found a national
memory institute: “We must stop being afraid of our history. We must
re-write some of its pages.”

The institute is intent to preserve national memory by holding events to
honor those who fell prey to genocide famines, exploring the tragic period
of totalitarian repressions in Ukraine and making these facts known. The
President appointed Ihor Yukhnovsky the head of this establishment.

Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov, Humanitarian Premier Vyacheslav Kyrylenko,
Culture Minister Ihor Likhovy, Defense Minister Anatoly Hrytsenko and Kyiv
Mayor Leonid Chernovetsky took part in the memorial ceremony.   -30-
========================================================
   If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.

          Please contact us if you no longer wish to receive the AUR.    
       You are welcome to send us names for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
         “ACTION UKRAINE REPORT – AUR”
         A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
                With major support from The Bleyzer Foundation
 
      Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
                Academic, Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
                                  Additional readers are welcome.
========================================================
      SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
                “SigmaBleyzer – Where Opportunities Emerge”
 
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
 
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
 
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
               “UKRAINE – A COUNTRY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES”
========================================================
   UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
========================================================
              ACTION UKRAINE PROGRAM – SPONSORS
                              Action Ukraine Report (AUR)
               Holodomor Art and Graphics Collection & Exhibitions
          “Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine’s Democratic Future”
             List of sponsors will be published again later this week.
========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR,
around five times a week, please send your name, country of residence,
and e-mail contact information to morganw@patriot.net. Information about
your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated. If you do
not wish to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT please contact us
immediately by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.  If you are receiving more
than one copy please let us know so this can be corrected. 
========================================================
                        PUBLISHER AND EDITOR – AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
Mobile in Kyiv: 8 050 689 2874
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
========================================================
    Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. 
========================================================
return to index [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s